Nutjobs Ranting About Politics.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
That's ridiculous. Bush has not governed as a conservative.

What color is the sun on your planet?

On fiscal issues, he has been more"liberal" than Clinton himself was.

That is true, if you (a) ignore the raison d'etre of his domestic policy, the tax cuts for rich people, and (b) pretend that spending money is ipso facto liberal, even if the money goes to things picked by Tom DeLay and Bill Frist.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Given all of the recent (a) violence against the Iraqis and (b) kidnappings of foreign nationals, including diplomats of Arab countries, can we finally agree to put to bed the myth that the violence in Iraq was a result of our "occupation" and instead attribute it to the fight against a democratic Iraq, as outlined in AZ's letter?

Club's bizarro binary world makes a re-appearance! If there's violence in Iraq now, then they weren't really shooting at us before! Those 900 Americans were killed because they were standing between Iraqis, apparently.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
What color is the sun on your planet?

What you said reminded me of something I read a few weeks ago:

• Bush seems to believe he can now present himself as the calm, centrist, steady point right in between the wild-eyed left and right. (Perhaps only Hitler puts enough weight on the other side to make Bush seem calm and centrist.) He must realize that he made a choice at some point in his presidency to put large forces into play. He didn't have to cast politcal arguments into grand battles between the forces of light and the forces of dark. He didn't have to stake everything on radical tax shifting and foreign policy insanity. The central argument of E. J. Dionne's superb new book, Stand Up, Fight Back, (although I have also heard it referred to as "E.J. Unleashed) is that Bush had two chances to govern in a way that would have unified the electorate and assured him support, if begrudging, across a broad swathe of the electorate -- after the Supreme Court made him president and after Sept. 11 -- and both he aggressively rejected. I think that's it in a nutshell, and probably how history will see this second one-term Bush presidency. But part of the problem is that Bush doesn't seem to have any idea that he has done this. He's just picking up where he left off in the 2000 campaign. But you have to recognize that when you stake your supporters to the cause of stopping gay marriage, when you stake the economy to a gamble on surviving massive deficits, when you stake your reputation as an international leader on a "you break it, you own it" invasion of a country, thoroughly unprepared for either the predicted or unpredictable consequences, you just have to hope that all those dice roll in your favor. If they do, you win "big time." If not, you lose. Bush has no option in his reelection message but to try to reinforce and justify the choice he's made to go the extremes.

The Decembrist

(The reference to Hitler is to the Bush campaign ad with a clip of Hitler in it.)

[Skeks in the city]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Given all of the recent (a) violence against the Iraqis and (b) kidnappings of foreign nationals, including diplomats of Arab countries, can we finally agree to put to bed the myth that the violence in Iraq was a result of our "occupation" and instead attribute it to the fight against a democratic Iraq, as outlined in AZ's letter?

No, Saddam wouldn't have allowed this level of violence.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Skeks in the city
No, Saddam wouldn't have allowed this level of violence.

Unless ordered by him, of course. Did you forget about the tongues being cut out and the people hurled out of buildings and the limbs being cut off and the rape rooms? How about the gassing of the Kurds? Is that violent enough for you?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

• Consumer advocate Ralph Nader's quixotic presidential campaign says it submitted about 5,400 signatures to get on the Michigan ballot, far short of the required number of 30,000. Luckily for him, approximately 43,000 signatures were filed by Michigan Republicans on his behalf, more than meeting the requirement.

ABC News

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Club's bizarro binary world makes a re-appearance! If there's violence in Iraq now, then they weren't really shooting at us before! Those 900 Americans were killed because they were standing between Iraqis, apparently.

I didn't say they weren't shooting, I was discussing the reasons for the shooting. Nice attempt at a bait and swith tho.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
What you said reminded me of something I read a few weeks ago:

• Bush seems to believe he can now present himself as the calm, centrist, steady point right in between the wild-eyed left and right. (Perhaps only Hitler puts enough weight on the other side to make Bush seem calm and centrist.) He must realize that he made a choice at some point in his presidency to put large forces into play. He didn't have to cast politcal arguments into grand battles between the forces of light and the forces of dark. He didn't have to stake everything on radical tax shifting and foreign policy insanity. The central argument of E. J. Dionne's superb new book, Stand Up, Fight Back, (although I have also heard it referred to as "E.J. Unleashed) is that Bush had two chances to govern in a way that would have unified the electorate and assured him support, if begrudging, across a broad swathe of the electorate -- after the Supreme Court made him president and after Sept. 11 -- and both he aggressively rejected. I think that's it in a nutshell, and probably how history will see this second one-term Bush presidency. But part of the problem is that Bush doesn't seem to have any idea that he has done this. He's just picking up where he left off in the 2000 campaign. But you have to recognize that when you stake your supporters to the cause of stopping gay marriage, when you stake the economy to a gamble on surviving massive deficits, when you stake your reputation as an international leader on a "you break it, you own it" invasion of a country, thoroughly unprepared for either the predicted or unpredictable consequences, you just have to hope that all those dice roll in your favor. If they do, you win "big time." If not, you lose. Bush has no option in his reelection message but to try to reinforce and justify the choice he's made to go the extremes.

The Decembrist

(The reference to Hitler is to the Bush campaign ad with a clip of Hitler in it.)

Ty, I try to read most of the articles you post, (if nothing else than to get a check on how looney the left really is). I tried to read this one as well, but when it says that the Supreme Court made Bush president, I must draw the line.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Skeks in the city
No, Saddam wouldn't have allowed this level of violence.

Huh? What does SH have to do with this?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Ty, I try to read most of the articles you post, (if nothing else than to get a check on how looney the left really is). I tried to read this one as well, but when it says that the Supreme Court made Bush president, I must draw the line.

You'll notice that I didn't quote that part of the article here. The part I quoted, OTOH, related to your prior post. (Unlike, e.g., what you just said and what I quoted.)

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
You'll notice that I didn't quote that part of the article here. The part I quoted, OTOH, related to your prior post. (Unlike, e.g., what you just said and what I quoted.)

The part you quoted did contain that part. I didn't even click the link.

On gay marriage, I read him as giving lip service to the religious right. He has not sent a package to Congress on this, and I think he is in favor of civil unions for gays - which is basically Kerry's position as well.

I don't see the tax cuts as the radical proposition the article suggests. Tax cuts have wide support through the GOP, not just the conservative wing. And putting the politics of it aside, a rational case can be made that the tax cuts were necessary to offset the recession. I know you don't think the structure of the cuts supports this, but we've had that discussion on numerous occassions. On the war, I again don't see it as a "conservative" position. Nearly every other recent president has chosen to enter into wars when our national security was, or was believed to be, at stake. Truman and Kennedy come quickly to mind.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
The part you quoted did contain that part. I didn't even click the link.

Right. My bad. But please -- the author was not arguing what you imply, merely relating what Dionne says about missed opportunities to move to the center.

On gay marriage, I read him as giving lip service to the religious right. He has not sent a package to Congress on this, and I think he is in favor of civil unions for gays - which is basically Kerry's position as well.

If you are going to credit him with positions inconsistent with those he was just advocating on the marriage amendment, then aren't you also going to attack him for waffling?

I don't see the tax cuts as the radical proposition the article suggests. Tax cuts have wide support through the GOP, not just the conservative wing. And putting the politics of it aside, a rational case can be made that the tax cuts were necessary to offset the recession. I know you don't think the structure of the cuts supports this, but we've had that discussion on numerous occassions.

Whatever. They were not policies that moderate voters were clamoring for, to say the least.

On the war, I again don't see it as a "conservative" position. Nearly every other recent president has chosen to enter into wars when our national security was, or was believed to be, at stake. Truman and Kennedy come quickly to mind.

If Bush really thought our national security was threatened, then he's dangerously out of touch. In any event, the man's foreign policies have hardly tended toward the bipartisan. We can set aside the normative argument about the wisdom of his Iraq policy -- although I'm still waiting for your response to my Iraq posts the other day -- but what this blog says about their place on the political spectrum is unassailable, as a positive matter.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
If you are going to credit him with positions inconsistent with those he was just advocating on the marriage amendment, then aren't you also going to attack him for waffling?

The marriage amendment is not inconsistent with that position.

Whatever. They were not policies that moderate voters were clamoring for, to say the least.

But that's far different from governing as a conservative.

If Bush really thought our national security was threatened, then he's dangerously out of touch. In any event, the man's foreign policies have hardly tended toward the bipartisan. We can set aside the normative argument about the wisdom of his Iraq policy -- although I'm still waiting for your response to my Iraq posts the other day -- but what this blog says about their place on the political spectrum is unassailable, as a positive matter.

The war had bi-partisan support. Senate voted 3-1 for. I'm not sure what posts you are referring to.

[sgtclub]

Palestinian businessmen have made millions of pounds supplying cement for Israel's "security barrier" in the full knowledge of Yasser Arafat, the Palestinian leader and one of the wall's most vocal critics.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.../25/wmid25.xml

[Say_hello_for_me]

Sanctions?

Invasion?

What's right here (presuming the answerer has a decent grasp of the facts, which I admittedly do not)?